Request you denounce and prevent the American DuPont impudently forcibly occupy intellectual property of Mr.Huang!
impudent DuPont CO.! impudent Holliday!impudent! impudent!! exceeding impudence!!!
DuPont and CEO Holliday are transnational scoundre!
Seek response from E-mail:
info.china at chn.dupont.comhttp://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/contactEmail.jsppresident at whitehouse.govPostmaster at doc.gov
Does DuPont dare to deny openly? It does not dare, absolutely does not dare. With ironclad evidence before it, what qualification does it has to deny? There is a proverb saying “Qui non improbat, approvat”. Without open objection, DuPont is openly admitting itself to be a transnational scoundrel, trampling on the human and national dignity of creditors.
repudiate a debt + vilify = scoundrel
repudiate a debt + vilify + threaten = impudently forcibly occupy
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My friend, Mr. Huang, is patent holder of a highly efficient and nontoxic farm pesticide production technology of People’s Republic of China. However, in 1995, without negotiating with Mr. Huang, DuPont Chemical Company of the United States has unilaterally worked out a “1995 Agreement” and took the patent technology solely as its own, and has been refusing to pay Mr. Huang any technology transfer fee or “full compensation”. More despicable is that DuPont Board Director and CEO Holliday has for three times vilified Mr. Huang as a scoundrel and the People’s Republic of China as a country of scoundrels on the obverse side of Mr. Huang’s “refused” envelope, and said Mr. Huang, as a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, is not entitled, as citizens of other countries do, to claim his right with DuPont according to laws of civilized countries and practice of civilized people. Since the summer of 2000, Mr. Huang has time and again produced sufficient factual evidences and irrefutable legal basis for DuPont to perform the agreement or conduct full compensation by way of writing letters, sending facsimiles, making telephone calls and face-to-face negotiation. And contrary to this, DuPont is unable to produce any factual evidences and legal basis neither for not performing the agreement nor for not conducting full compensation, but takes the attitude of “”absolutely” not performing the agreement nor conducting full compensation, and “you may do as you like”. Here I want to ask who is the scoundrel (a transnational scoundrel)? What kind of qualification has Holliday obtained to do so? In summing up, Holliday and DuPont are undoubtedly scoundrels. Or more correctly, Holliday is a transnational scoundrel, while DuPont is a multinational scoundrel. In order to safeguard the basic economic order as well as the basic ethics in the world, Mr. Huang here sincerely request all ladies, gentlemen, CEOs, experts and men of noble characters to let it know to Holliday and DuPont that laws of civilized countries cannot be trampled on, the basic ethics of the society cannot be ruined, respect and equal treatment to China and the Chinese people are necessary, and to repudiate debts cannot fatten itself. DuPont must observe the obligations it has promised in the agreement, let alone the commitment it made initiatively. It must pay patent fee and license fee to Mr. Huang and may by no means go back on its words. If it dares to take goods and does not pay, it certainly dares to take the money and does not deliver the goods, or deliver fake products, or deliver products of inferior quality. Who will be the next victim? At what time? And what’s the amount? Who can guarantee? Therefore, Mr. Huang request all of you, CEOs, technical experts, men of noble characters, and Chinese compatriots: guard your property and wealth against Holliday and DuPont. Though you are fully capable of smashing the scheme of Holliday and DuPont, it is a waste of time, energy and money to do so; keep away from them and avoid various exchanges with them. Mr. Huang sincerely suggests you check whether you have fallen into the trap of Holliday, or the trap of DuPont? If you have, go straightly to them and get even with them. Otherwise you will be taken as automatic disclaimers of power once the “validity of legal prescription” passes.
With best regards
Empowered person: SXF
Annex:
Heartfelt thanks for your reading my E-mail and your mail of attention to this matter. I would like to make some replenishment concerning the matter, for you to judge and decide.
I Abstract
1. At the request of Du Pont, Mr. Huang has for 10 times submitted written technical materials to Du Pont from April 1993 to 1994, for expert group of Du Pont to conduct feasibility analysis.
2. On February 22, 1995, Dr Robert F Sklar, Technology Transfer Licensing Manager of DuPont arrived in Shanghai in China, to “sign many agreements” with Mr. Huang. Mr. Huang insisted DuPont examines samples first before signs any agreement. However, as samples were still in the process of purification at the time, no agreements were signed then.
3. On March 28, 1995, Mr. Huang sent the first batch of samples to Du Pont by post.
4. On September 7, 1995, Mr. Huang received “Biological Evaluation Agreement” (1995 Agreement) sent by Du Pont, requiring Mr. Huang to sign this agreement and again provide samples. Mr. Huang signed the agreement and sent second batch of samples as requested by DuPont.
DuPont admit in Article 5 of the “1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang will be entitled to claim patent and licensing fees. DuPont states in Article 8 of the “1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang may not cooperate with any universities or enterprises in any form before and after signing of this agreement (for this reason, Mr. Huang has refused cooperation request of several companies).
5. On September 10, 1998, DuPont sent a letter to Mr. Huang, asking for third batch of samples.
6. In 1999, DuPont carried out a month-long insecticide screening on the third batch of samples (in fact, it has carried out weeds killing test and mould killing test in the meantime), and required to keep all these tests a secret.
7. On June 8, 2000, DuPont sent a letter saying it was not interested in samples provided by Mr. Huang, and refused to pay Mr. Huang patent and licensing fees.
8.The mail signed by DuPont on June 2th, 2005, threaten Mr.Huang ,and prevent Mr.Huang send the
E-mail.
无耻型的杜邦公司!无耻型的贺利得!
美国杜邦是强横无耻型的跨国级的无赖公司!
求证E-mail：杜邦中国 info.china at chn.dupont.com ,
杜邦总部Contact Us: http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/contactEmail.jsppresident at whitehouse.govPostmaster at doc.gov
美国杜邦敢公开否认吗？
不敢!不敢!!绝对不敢!!!
。。。。。。。。。。。。
强横无耻,铁证与如山!有什么资格否认？
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
西方谚语：“不反对就是赞成! ”
美国杜邦不公开否认,就是公开承认自己是强横无耻型的跨国级的无赖公司!
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
美国杜邦顽固赖帐，并侮辱债权人的人格和国格!
无理顽固赖帐 + 无耻污蔑 = 强横无耻型的无赖
无理顽固赖帐 + 无耻污蔑 + 威胁-恫吓 = 强横无耻型的强占
尊敬的阁下：您好！
衷心感谢您阅读了我的E-mail，并来函关注此事。现就有关事项补充如下，敬请评判与处理。
我的朋友黄先生是中华人民共和国一项专利技术的专利权人。美国杜邦化学公司1995年以完全由杜邦公司单方面制订，未与黄先生作任何协商的《1995年协议》独家占有了黄先生一项高效、无毒的农业杀虫剂技术之后，
一直拒绝按照杜邦在《1995年协议》第5条中主动承诺，付给黄先生技术转让费或“完全赔偿”金。尤其恶劣
的是，杜邦全球总部董事会主席兼首席执行官贺利得（Holliday，霍尼迪）为了达到顽固赖帐的目的，三次在
“REFUSED”（拒收）的黄先生信封正面污蔑黄先生是无赖分子，中华人民共和国（P・R・China中国）是无赖
国家；黄先生作为中华人民共和国公民，根本没有资格像其他国家公民一样，根据世界各文明国家的法律和文明人类的惯例向杜邦主张自己的权利。
自2000年夏天以来，黄先生几百次以纸质信件、传真、电话、E-mail、当面交涉等方式，提出了美国杜邦化学公司必须履行协议或完全赔偿的充足的事实证据与无可辩驳的法律依据；与此完全相反，美国杜邦化学公司提
不出任何不履行协议或完全赔偿的事实证据法律依据，但就是“绝对不”履行协议或完全赔偿，“你愿意怎么
办就怎么办”。请问各位，到底谁是无赖（而且是跨国级的!）？贺利得具有的是什么样的资格？综上所述，
毫无疑问，只有贺利得和美国杜邦才是无赖!确切地说，贺利得是强横无耻型的跨国级的无赖份子，美国杜邦
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
是强横无耻型的跨国级的无赖公司。
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
为了维护世界的最起码的经济秩序，为了维护世界最起码的道德，黄先生敬请各位尊敬的女士、先生、总裁、专家、君子，教育Holliday和美国杜邦公司，学会不要践踏文明国家的法律，不要败坏社会最基本的道德，学会尊重、平等对待其他国家和其他国家的人民；教训Holliday和美国杜邦,顽固 赖 帐是不可能养肥自己的。在协议中承诺的义务必须履行，主动承诺的义务就更必须履行，必须向黄先生支付专利费、许可证费，绝对不许赖帐!
这是收了货不给钱；那麽会不会收了钱不给货？或者给假货？或者给劣货？下一轮侵夺对象是谁？何时侵夺？
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
侵夺财产的数量多大（肯定不会小）？谁敢保证？因此，黄先生敬请尊敬的女士们、先生们、总裁们、技术专
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
家们，一切道德高尚的君子们，一 切有民族自尊心的人士：千万警惕和严防Holliday和美国杜邦侵夺您的
巨额财富。虽然您完全有能力粉碎他们赖帐阴谋，但是没有必要浪费您浪宝贵的精力、时间和金钱；尽量远离
他们，不或少与他们进行各种交交易!
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
敬请您和您的亲戚、朋友、同事检查一下自己是否中了Holliday这圈套？是否中了美国杜邦公司的圈套？如果。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
已经中了他们的圈套，就赶快找他们算帐。否则，过了法律规定的“时效”，就会被视为自动弃权。
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
此致
最崇高的敬礼！
全责代理人：SXF
(附件）
摘要
1. 从1993年4月起到1994年，黄先生应杜邦要求，向杜邦提供了近10次文字技术资料，供杜邦专家组进行
可行性分析。
2. 1995年2月22日杜邦技术转让与许可证经理Sklar博士 （E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Robert
F. Sklar Ph. D. Manager,Technology Transfer Licensing)来中国上海，要与黄先生“签订许多协议”。黄先生坚持要在让杜邦看了样品后再签协议，而当时样品尚在提纯过程中，故未签协议。
3 1995年3月28日黄先生向杜邦寄出了第壹批样品。
4. 1995年9月7日黄先生收到杜邦寄来的《BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AGREEMENT（1995年协议)》，要求黄先生签署此协议并再提供样品。黄先生按杜邦要求署了此协议并向杜邦寄出了第贰批样品。杜邦在《1995年协议》第5条中向黄先生主动承诺，黄先生将有提取专利费、许可证费的权利。杜邦在《1995年协议》第8条中规定，黄先生不得与任何大学或企业作任何合作（黄先生为此而谢绝了几家公司要求合作的 请求）。
5. 1998年9月10日杜邦发信向黄先生要到了第叁批样品。
6 1999年杜邦对第叁批样品进行一个多月的Insecticide Screening（际实上，同时进行了杂草杀灭试验和霉菌杀灭试验。杜邦要求对这些试验全部保密）。
7. 2000年6月8日杜邦发信称对黄先生的样品不感兴趣,拒绝向黄先生支付专利费和特许证费。 8.2005.06.02. 杜邦签署信件，对黄先生进行威胁-恫吓，阻止黄先生发此E-mail。
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/diffusion/attachments/20050826/7ceef54c/attachment.html>